The chattering classes are sullen. The president they were sure was a stupid bumbler is doing rather well. He has been patient and forceful. He glued together a coalition that includes a Labor prime minister of Britain, a Russian president, and a Pakistani dictator. A number of prominent Democrats admittedanonymously, of coursethat they are relieved that Bush is president, not Gore. Here in New York, the news for the chatterers is almost as bad: Rudy Giuliani, the mayor they derided for so long as a reckless demagogue, has emerged as the American Churchill. How irritating. The big picture is galling, too. Leading roles on the national stage haven't been played by the

thinking elite but by the semidisdained nonchatterers who act physically in the real worldthe military, the police, firefighters, agents of the CIA. And the values of the nonchatterersheroism, patriotism, self-sacrificeare on the rise. Crowds aren't lining the streets and holding up "Thank you, chatterers" signs as pundits and professors drive by.

The rest of the article is just as good.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

In his 1995 book, The Revolt of the Elites, the late social critic Christopher Lasch wrote that the new bicoastal elites were seceding from the common life of America. He said the elites "have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West" and now tend to think of Western civilization as a system of domination and oppression. This attitude helps explain why so many in the elites seem offended by a war of self-defense-and why their intellectual confusion won't fade as the war goes on.

Anti-war protesters may have noble intentions but with out look at each war in it's own circumstances they just come off as clueless. Not all wars are useless and some are even noble. With out the Revolutionary war we'd still be under the imperialistic grip of Britain. With out the Civil war people may still have been oppressed till this day. With out WW1 or 2 Europe would have a totally different landscape. Bad wars: Crusades, USA Vs. Native Americans, war going on in northern ireland, Palestinians and Israel. It's not black and white.

My point was that although he's trying to say that left-wing = media = chatterers = no-values, in the end, isn't he just a chatterer, too? Or is he different from those other chatterers?

And what about all those conservative pundits on TV and radio and in opinion columns. Are they value-less chatterers, too? Then why didn't he talk about them?

To me, this is the worst of post- 9/11: It's using terrorism to pointlessly blame and criticize other Americans. This is just a conservative searching for a way, any way, to bash the libs and their traditional punching bag, the media.

Conservatives get mad that libs blame the US, but there's just as much blaming coming from their side, too. I've seen plenty of Clinton-blaming, "liberal American culture"-blaming, and even gay-blaming out of some.

So, is it OK to criticize and blame Americans during this period, as long as those Americans are liberals? You can't criticize conservatives, or you're un patriotic. But if you blame Clinton, gays, media "chatterers," professors, and liberals, you're fine?

One other thing: the idea that the media is angry that there's a successful war is absurd. When did CNN become important? During the Gulf War. The media absolutely love this kind of thing. It's The Big Story®. They don't care if it's OJ, or the Gulf War, or the War on Terrorism, as long as it's something the whole country is talking about, the media become important.

Oh, and one other thing: Did you like the way the "prominent Democrats" who are glad Bush is president were anonymous? That way he doesn't have to prove that it's true.

This was just a hack-job. If it's not as disgusting to you as liberals blaming the US, ask yourself why not.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
So, is it OK to criticize and blame Americans during this period, as long as those Americans are liberals? You can't criticize conservatives, or you're un patriotic.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What are you talking about? Holy hell rained down on Falwell and Robertson a little while ago - deservedly so. Did they suddenly become liberals when I wasn't looking?

[quote]<strong>Oh, and one other thing: Did you like the way the "prominent Democrats" who are glad Bush is president were anonymous? That way he doesn't have to prove that it's true.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This isn't the only place where this has been reported. You are saying he's lying?

[quote]<strong>This was just a hack-job. If it's not as disgusting to you as liberals blaming the US, ask yourself why not.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Journalist Andrew Sullivan has been sharp in detecting the anguish of the chatterers. "Not a sentence of celebration" appeared in the New York Times after the Northern Alliance broke through, and the same gloom prevails at the BBC and National Public Radio, he wrote. Why? Sullivan thinks the media chatterers of the left feel disempowered by the war. They are used to being in charge. They played a big role in ending the Vietnam War and ousting Nixon. But in this war, Sullivan wrote on his Web site, "the pundits and editorialists and cable news executives have been knocked down a few pegs in the social hierarchy. They have much less power than they had before September 11." As a result, Sullivan thinks angry media elites will get even angrier and will soon step up efforts to disparage and undermine the war.

Think again. Lawrence Summers, the new president of Harvard, had something to say about the elites, too. "The post-Vietnam cleavage between the coastal elites and certain mainstream values is a matter of great concern and has some real costs," he said. He urged the academic world to rethink its attitudes toward patriotism, which must have sent hundreds of his professors into a swoon. He said Harvard has a responsibility to support all public servants, especially "those who fight and are prepared to die."

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>I'll tell you one thing: Since 9/11 I've been watching MUCH more news like CNN, foxnews, and abcnews. It accounts for about 50% of my viewing now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Fox news is pure, ratings-driven crapola. The worst collection of sensationalist half-truths one can find short of "A Current Affair." Do yourself a favor and watch some other channel's news. Fox is clueless. It is their brand of news and "reporting" that is in part responsible for the "dumbing down" we always hear about.

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:
<strong>
Fox news is pure, ratings-driven crapola. The worst collection of sensationalist half-truths one can find short of "A Current Affair." Do yourself a favor and watch some other channel's news. Fox is clueless. It is their brand of news and "reporting" that is in part responsible for the "dumbing down" we always hear about.

Do right by America: boycott Fox.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

What did they report that was wrong? Unlike the NYT and CNN Fox seems to do a good job keeping the news away from the "news analysis". Maybe you're confused about which shows are news analysis and which ones are hard news.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>What are you talking about?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm talking about the fact that some of the same people who find it offensive to blame America are those who gleefully post and rah-rah some op-ed column that baselessly blames and accuses liberals. [quote]You are saying he's lying?<hr></blockquote>So, the burden of proof is on me to show that he's lying? Usually when writers publish articles, the burden of proof is on them to support their own statements.
[quote]Yes, shocking, disgusting stuff. <hr></blockquote>Yes, I think insinuating that liberals are upset because of a military success is disgusting. If you don't see anything disgusting about it, and can only "roll your eyes" at the idea that it's wrong, you have some values amiss.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
So, the burden of proof is on me to show that he's lying? Usually when writers publish articles, the burden of proof is on them to support their own statements.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, this was reported elsewhere. Leo wasn't breaking any news here. I think it's obvious why Democrats who feel that way would choose to remain anonymous.

[quote]<strong>Yes, I think insinuating that liberals are upset because of a military success is disgusting. If you don't see anything disgusting about it, and can only "roll your eyes" at the idea that it's wrong, you have some values amiss.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So what was Larry Summers talking about? He's not a conservative. Michael Kelly did a humourous piece in a similar vein about a week ago. At least one liberal friend recognized what he was talking about. Maybe if Leo had tried to be funny his point would not be so resented by you.

<strong>Sounds to me like it's conservatives whining. About peace protestors. And the media. And professors. And chatterers. And pundits. And the elite. Wah wah wah. They're all so bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, Larry Summers is not a conservative. There are a lot of tough minded people on the left who have come out solidly behind the President and the war effort. Leo was only holding up to scrutiny those who haven't. He did nothing that wasn't done to Falwell and Robertson or those Republicans who couldn't resist partisanship during Kosovo. Or maybe you believe some people are beyond criticism?

Fox news is pure, ratings-driven crapola. The worst collection of sensationalist half-truths one can find short of "A Current Affair." Do yourself a favor and watch some other channel's news. Fox is clueless. It is their brand of news and "reporting" that is in part responsible for the "dumbing down" we always hear about.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fox news is ok. Most tv news sucks, though. I only read newspapers and weeklies. IMO the WSJ has the best reporting of news; I do not refer to the editorials but only the reporting. I read the LA Times for local news only.

Regarding viewpoint shows, I personally enjoy watching The O'Reilly Factor only because he speaks his mind and speaks with some intelligence. The other pundit shows are so imflammatory and lack intelligence. I may not agree with all of O'Reilly's opinions, but I respect him for attempting to be real.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>There are a lot of tough minded people on the left who have come out solidly behind the President and the war effort. Leo was only holding up to scrutiny those who haven't.</strong><hr></blockquote>But who, specifically, was he talking about, and what, exactly, did they do? He just talks about "the elite" and "the chatterers of the left" (ignoring the fact that he, too, is a chatterer) and vaguely implies that they lack the values of real Americans, without being very specific about what exactly they did.

If he specifically criticized Chomsky, for example, or Leahy, then I would say that's fair. The article just seems like something used to stir up Americans against other, nameless and faceless, Americans. The conservatives on these boards have gotten awfully mad at liberals who blame America since 9/11, but now, in this thread, they seem to be applauding it.

What he was basically saying is.. the anti-war protesters are upset they are not getting their way. They are upset they have nothing (credible) to blame Bush with. They are trying to treat it like NAM.. when it's not.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

[quote]Originally posted by zonetuke:
<strong>Regarding viewpoint shows, I personally enjoy watching The O'Reilly Factor only because he speaks his mind and speaks with some intelligence. The other pundit shows are so imflammatory and lack intelligence. I may not agree with all of O'Reilly's opinions, but I respect him for attempting to be real.</strong><hr></blockquote>

REAL? Oh, my bsides are hurting from laughing at this comment. O'Reilly is a sensationalist to the nTH degree. He's worse than Morton Downey Jr., Rush Limball and Geraldo Rivera combined. A former "A Current Affair" talking head now is a "respected journalist". Someone needs some KY Jelly to get their head out of their ass... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

I like O'Reilly. Maybe because I agree with much of what he has to say. But mostly because he speaks like he's not always reading from a teleprompter like all the other cookie cutter news guys out there.

REAL? Oh, my bsides are hurting from laughing at this comment. O'Reilly is a sensationalist to the nTH degree. He's worse than Morton Downey Jr., Rush Limball and Geraldo Rivera combined. A former "A Current Affair" talking head now is a "respected journalist". Someone needs some KY Jelly to get their head out of their ass... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

So because he worked on Current Affair that makes him illegitimate for any other job in journalism? I don't suppose you could name the other news org's he worked for? You know he went to Harvard right? Public Policy school I think. MA degree.

I don't see where you are going with this. YOu have the talk show host from a show that is only there for sensationalism, the conservative radio talk show host (who by the way is Limbaugh not Limball) who actually does get most of his facts straight even if they are of a conservative bent to play to his audience, and an Ex talk show host who now is doing war reporting.

So you are saying that he is a sensationalist, conservative talk show host that actually gets most of his facts right but should be doing war reporting instead? (tongue firmly in cheek)

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Ummm, he quoted Andrew Sullivan who specifically mentioned the NY Times. He quoted Larry Summers who directed his comments to the academic world. There's some of the people he was talking about.

[quote]<strong>The conservatives on these boards have gotten awfully mad at liberals who blame America since 9/11, but now, in this thread, they seem to be applauding it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That chip on your shoulder - how's that working for you? Leo wasn't blaming America. What are you talking about?

He also didn't use the word "liberal" in his column. And as for me, I am a conservative but I didn't think I was mad at liberals for blaming America. Not all liberals blame America. I just thought of the moral equivalence crowd as morons - not liberals.